Shuja-ud-Din, Member .--Briefly stated facts of the instant service appeal are that the appellant joined FIA as ASI in June, 2007. He was allocated the Immigration Group. He was promoted as Sub-Inspector in July 2000. He has been working in Passport Circle, Cyber Crimes, Lahore and Faisalabad Circle, since 2007. A Show-Cause Notice dated 23.5.2016, was issued to him with following allegations:-- "(i) The defaulting SI was directed to attend the office in connection with inspection by Director Technical FIA Headquarters Islamabad, but he did not pay heed to the orders.
(ii) The defaulting Sub Inspector did not bother to attend the office which is also against the norms and rules, without proper/prior permission of the Competent Authority . This fact was also reported in daily roznamacha on 16.05.2016.
(iii) All this shows gross misconduct, mala fide intentions and height of negligence on the part of the defaulting Sub Inspector ."
He submitted a detailed reply on 23.5.2016. Subsequently , the Authorized Officer without holding any inquiry , imposed a minor penalty of "withholding of increments for a period of 02 years without cumulated effect" vide order dated 8.6.2016. He preferred a departmental appeal dated 4.7.2016 to the Respondent No. 1, who rejected the same on 1 1.1.2017.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned orders dated 8.6.2016 and 11.1.2017 are illegal and harsh. It has been alleged that the appellant failed to attend the office on 16.5.2016 despite directions.
He submitted a detailed explanation inter alia stating that on 16.5.2016, he had gone to District Khushab to execute fifteen (15) non-bailable warrants issued by the Special Cohrt (Offence in Bank), Lahore. The appellant informed Muhammad Khalid, Head Constable/Moh arar to enter his departure report in the Roznamacha before leaving the office in early morning for Khushab.. The Moharar replied that that he will make the entry as it was too early .
Roznamacha was yet to be started and he assured for entry sooner . Unfortunately , the Mohar ar forgot to make entry therefore he was declared absent from the office at about 03:00 p.m. on the said date. He disclosed this fact to both the respondents, but they did not , bother to confirm this fact from the concerned Moharar who had failed to provide copy of Roznamacha showing his departure and without confirming the facts imposed the penalty . While referring to reported case vide PLD 1986 S.C 162. Learned counsel argued that the shorter procedure adopted by the Authorized officer to punish the appellant is a clear voilation of the dictum as laid down by the Apex Court. He also placed reliance on 1980 SCMR 850, 1993 SCMR 603, 1997 SCMR 1543 , 1552 and 2006 SCMR 206. Further urged that the penalty of "withholding of increment for two years" is not only illegal but also absolutely harsh and unjust and do not even commensurate with the charges as enshrined in 2011 PLC (C.S.) 301 and 2013 SCMR
372. Thus, the appellant prayed for acceptance of his appeal by setting aside the impu gned orders dated 8.6.2016 and 1 1.1.2017.
3. The learned AA-G confuted the contention of appellant on the strength of roznamacha report dated 16.05.2016 wherein the appellant was mentioned as absent. Moreover , he argued that the appellant was directed to attend the office in connection with inspection by the Director Technical FIA HQs Islamabad but he remained absent. In reply to Show cause Notice and the departmental appeal the appellant did not mention about his request for making entry in Roznamcha to Moharrar on the reported morning. Thus, there was sufficient material available against the appellant so the authorized officer had rightly proceeded without holding inquiry and imposed minor penalty . The appellant has blemish tack record as he was previously penalized with the similar penalty on 27.2.2013. However , at that time penalty was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 23.6.2014. Yet another penalty of withholding of promotion for a period of 05 years, when due, was imposed on 31.3.2017. In present case a Show-Cause Notice was issued to him on 23.5.2016. The Deputy Director FIA Circle Faisalabad reported about absence entered in roznamacha dated 16.5.2016 which shows his gross-misconduct and mala fide. He pointed that while submitting reply to the Show-Cause Notice the appellant took different pleas which were found unsatisfactory even during his personal hearing on 7.6.2016 by the Authorized Officer and accordingly he was awarded minor penalty on 8.6.2016. He was afforded full opportuni ty to prove his innocence during hearing on 7.6.2016 but he failed. His appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority after examining the facts on record by giving him personal hearing on 9.1.2017. No illegality was committed while punishing him therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is abundantly clear from the record that the appellant was directed to attend the office of Director Technical FIA HQs Islamabad in connection with inspec tion but he did not attend the said office. This factum had been reported by the Deputy Director FIA circle Faisalabad in the Roznamacha dated 16.05.2016. Thereupon, the authorized officer decided to proceed against the appellant under Rule 5 (1) (iii) of the Govt. Servant (Efficiency & Discipline)
Rules 1973 by dispensing with the enquiry . Hence, a Show-Cause Notice dated 23.05.2016 was issued. The appellant submitted his reply . The relevant portion of reply is as follows; ".......... In this regard, I submit following submissions for favourable considerations please: That I am serving as Sub-Inspector in FIA Faisalabad for last 516 months.
That I have conducted successful raids and arrested 01 MWT during this period.
That I have also finalized so many caseslenquiries1 verifications during this period. I was entrusted warrants of arrest issued by the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore and I have proceeded to Khushab for execution the same at far flung areas of District Khushab.
That I could not attend the meeting because I was busy in official duties. ..................... .....................
Sir, I shall be careful in future."
The authorized officer heard the appellan t in person on 07.06.2016 and held him guilty . The specific contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the formal inquiry was not held and appel lant was denied the indefeasible right to defend himself. Further the plea of appellant as mentioned in memo. of appeal is that on 16.05.2016 he had gone to District Khushab for execution of 15 bailable warrants of arrest issued by the Special Court (Offences in Bank), Lahore. He further stated that on 16.05.2016 in early hours at morning he asked the Moharar Muhammad Khalid HC to make his departure entry in Roznamacha . Since the Roznamcha was yet to be opened therefore he assured that he will make the entry but somehow he forgot to do so. We have considered this specific submission of the appellant in the context of his earlier reply to the Show-Cause Notice and Departmental Appeal. It is observed that the appellant had not taken this specific plea at that time. So it is an after though. Had he asked the Moharar for making entry in Roznamcha on the eventful morning, he would have been mentioned the same facts in his first reply to the show-cause notice and subsequent departmental appeal. Instead, he requested that he shall be careful in future. Conversely , the authorized officer and the appellate authority had sufficient proof in terms of Roznamacha entry showing absence. Therefore, there was no need for requiring more evidence to substantiate the allegations. Hence the references quoted by the learned counsel for appellant, in the peculiar circumstance of instant case are distinguishable. Further , the appellant has also faced two more departmental proceedings and in one of them a penalty of withholding of promotion for a period of 05 years was imposed on 31.3.2017. Amidst such situation, we are of the view that the appellant has rightly been held liable to face penalty . Ultimately , an adequate quantum of penalty was imposed showing due clemency by the respondent department.
6. In view of above, the instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. There is no order as to Costs.
7. Parties be informed.